by Aussie Oz 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals
it would be a great thing if someone could map these shell companies and tie them back to the wbts
It is not a shell company. It's an investment that was given as a gift to wts. They draw profits from it.
It is already tied back to the wbts very clearly already in legal papers that are public information.
Aside from a legal viewpoint, money is money. The WT profits from tobacco. Ownership is beside the point, IMO.
I wouldn't say it is "besides the point," and I see clear distinctions, as does the IRS. To me, there is a very big difference between an organization/individual making the choice to spend their money to become part owner in a company (by buying stocks in it) and an organization/individual being willed money from a trust that contains tons of other stocks.
But, others may disagree. I wasn't into 'straining the gnat' when I was a JW, and I am not into it now. If course, I bought BP stock right after the Gulf incident when it dropped like a rock because I knew it would rebound and resume paying dividends...so, perhaps I'm not the best example of integrity in investing. LOL!
Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a post to Ozzie, I have seen people get their asses handed to them on other discussion boards because they do not make the proper legal distinctions...and, as some have done here, start posting quotes regarding stock ownership. Then, JW apologists use their legally misinformed posts to make the 'apostate' look stupid.
I'm with Justitia on this one. The WTBS has no control over what the trust does. They have exactly two options, cash the check or don't cash the check.
Question, what happens to the money if they don't take it? i.e. The only instruction in the trust document is "give money to the WTBS." What is the trustee supposed to do if they just keep sending it back?
They accept the money. Am I the only one who sees moral fault with this? Law santitizes many things. Law is very important to me. It is a silly distinction morally. I am not talking Trusts and Estates law. Despite its complexity, I did very well. Morality is an issue. Hypocrisy is an issue. Legal ownership is important in law. This is a morality discussion.
If they did not hurt people so severely b/c of tobacco (which no longer seems such a bad thing. Tobacco is a morally deficient product. The scientifc evidence is clear), their ownership/ receiving an income flow would not matter.
There is a wide world of morality and conscience outside of legal restraints. Morality and law are two different things. I assert that T&E technicialities (which I doubt a law student can appreciate. YOu need to have it as your primary practice area) aside, moral questions rank much higher. Hitler's actions were legal. Idi Amin's were legal. The Holocaust was legal. To quote a famous line from my generation, Dylan, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the weather is blowing."
It is wrong. Period. Members lose family members and close friends b/c of shunning. They lose the only community must know. Law is a side issue in this discussion. Altho it is nice to know the legal terms in a discussion so JWs can't derail the main message by an error only most lawyers would know. Trusts and estate is a side show in law. It does not rank with contracts, torts, procedure, property. The national bar exam does not test on Trusts and Estates. Precison is nice. The legal status does not derail the argument that they are hypocritical.
Common sense usually rules. Was Gore so upset if he kept the land in his name and received staggering profits until he ran for President?
They accept the money. Am I the only one who sees moral fault with this?
No Band, you are not.
I'm not afraid of getting my arse handed back to me by an apologist over the technicalities pointed out. I am interested in the cold hard paperwork facts.
I am documenting a lot of stuff, which will leave the reader to make the judgement. If they decide to put on 'plausable deniability glasses' so they can sleep at night so be it.
I am not disagreeeing with Justina either on the way a trust works, frankly i dont think it matters a bean. It's hypocrasy pure and simple, the two names are on the same document and the Watchtower has the authority to change that, and did not.
Oz
Quality is better than quantity, Oz.
Chris
The Henrietta trust reminds me of the movement for divestiture in South African holdings. Trusts did not negate the campaign for universities and major companies to get rid of tainted holdings. No one said, Oh, it is a trust. Perfectly all right to hold. Trusts have no impact on apartheid.
Justita said: 100% incorrect. The investors legal duty is to manage the TRUST to make the most money for the beneficiaries under the the Prudent Investor Standard, and they are not required to use social investment strategies OR "respect the wishes" of the beneficiaries. As I have repeatedly written, the beneficiaries have absolutely no say. The bank would really laugh at such a request...
OK, my jaw just dropped reading that. So if the WTS stated that they did not want the monies invested in tobacco or arms, etc. the bank would just say 'too bad, so sad'? Really? I'm somewhat stunned at that. I'm wondering if the laws are different here in Canada because when I met with my banker regarding investments and where I want my monies to be invested in, I had a pretty good input on what I was investing in. Or maybe the difference is that this is my money and not a trust??
In either event, thank you for the clarification on this Justita.
Justita said: 100% incorrect. The investors legal duty is to manage the TRUST to make the most money for the beneficiaries under the the Prudent Investor Standard, and they are not required to use social investment strategies OR "respect the wishes" of the beneficiaries. As I have repeatedly written, the beneficiaries have absolutely no say. The bank would really laugh at such a request...
OK, my jaw just dropped reading that. So if the WTS stated that they did not want the monies invested in tobacco or arms, etc. the bank would just say 'too bad, so sad'? Really? I'm somewhat stunned at that. I'm wondering if the laws are different here in Canada because when I met with my banker regarding investments and where I want my monies to be invested in, I had a pretty good input on what I was investing in. Or maybe the difference is that this is my money and not a trust??
In either event, thank you for the clarification on this Justita.
Your question is a great one Mary, and I think this is where the confusion is arising.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is the precise reason why wealthy people use them. A trust transfers a financial benefit without transferring title. It allows them to pass the benefits of their wealth (the regularly scheduled payments from the trust income) to a beneficiary without actually giving the beneficiary the ability to manage or change the investments. This trust likely has a spendthrift clause/anti-alienation clause (which does not exist in England). It keeps investments in the family and protected from any spouse the beneficiary might marry. In the event of a divorce, the spouse couldn't take anything in the trust because the beneficiary doesn't own the trust assets. Another benefit it that creditors can't reach the trust assets. So if the beneficiary gets into financial difficulties, creditors can't attach the property in the trust for repayment because the beneficiary doesn't own them. The creditor would have to wait until a trust payment is distributed to a beneficiary, and once that specific check is cut, the beneficiary owns that check, and the creditor can take that money.
Here is a sample trust anti-alienation clause from my Wills/Trusts notes:
1. Sample clause: Restraint on Alienation: No interest in any trust estate shall vest in any beneficiary until actual payment by the Trustee, and no part thereof shall be liable for the debts of any beneficiary or be subject to the right on the part of any creditor of any beneficiary to reach the same by any legal proceeding. No beneficiary shall have any power to dispose of, encumber, or anticipate any portion of said trust estate.
When you meet with your banker to manager your investments, you are managing YOUR property. The banker must do whatever YOU say.
In the Riley Trust, the banker has a legal fiduciary duty to manage the trust in a manner that makes as much money as possible for the trust. The trustee (bank) has no duty to respect the wishes or consciences of the beneficiaries, who remember do not even own the trust assets. That makes sense because there are often multiple beneficiaries (e.g. family members) to a trust; they could all have conflicting wishes.
With all that said, the bank trustee doesn't have a DUTY to follow the WTBTS's wishes, but that doesn't mean that the trustee wouldn't be open to getting rid of PM if asked to do so. The bank is required to send regular statements to the WTBTS, so they are aware of how the money is invested. But it is wrong to say that they have control, own the stock, or have a right to change the investments. In addition, the WTBTS might be able to ask for an adminstrative deviation, but that often requires a court order.
So, I don't think they are totally off the hook; who knows if they have even asked the bank to change the investment...right? While they can't demand changes, that doesn't mean that the bank wouldn't be responsive if they asked.
Just a note to clarify...I still do not believe they are being hypocrtical.
This situation, to me, seem no different than a person being out in service and someone saying, "Hey, I just got a big dividend from my Phillip Morris stock. Here is a donation to your church."
I don't see that they have ever placed a burden on the rank/file to investigate the source of any gift they receive, so I don't see why the burden should be placed on them to investigate the source of a gift the WTBTS receives.
